- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 53,813
- Reaction score
- 10,864
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
If they knew who was stealing the products, they would have caught them,
they are simply securing those products which have ether a high value, or a high loss rate.
Like a high end store chaining the fur coats to the racks.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe the article technically ever provided any proof that these products were getting stolen more than other similar products. I wish the story had actually addressed that definitively. Obviously the store was at least worried that these products would get stolen more but the article could have clearly stated if inventory and sales records backed that up. They were kind of vague about that.
We periodically review items that may require additional security measures. Decisions about product access in our stores are data-driven on a store by store basis
Hmm...this is a tough one. I think I need to see some more debate on this before I pick.
Here's where I'm struggling. If the decision to lock up specific products was purely data driven (I'd need to review the process), then it is not, in itself, discrimination. The decision would be made because of the activity of product, not the folks buying it.
However...if the results of that analysis suggesting a solution that made sense from a data perspective, but was clearly problematic from an optics standpoint, was the solution the best thought out solution? If all the hair care products were locked up, or moved to a higher visibility place in the store, would this be an issue? Could shrink within this brand category be reduced without making law abiding customers feel discriminated against? And, if so, what was the reason the store didn't try those approaches? Did they not realize the poor optics, or did they recognize it, but not care to change it?
I think there would likely be folks who kneejerk to one camp or another, but I'm not sure we have enough information to make the call. I'm interested to see what other people say.
Good points. Which is why I voted other. The article doesn't really clear up questions I had, mainly was there actually more shrink with these items, or was the lock up policy determined more out of fear than actual facts? However, the article does seem to imply that there was more shrink on these particular products although they didn't actually come out and say that that was the case.
Even with shrink statistics, though, a chain retailer, in this day and age, should understand about the optics of only locking up the "black products". That's where I raise an eyebrow. Not suggesting it's necessarily an organizational issue, but someone at the store should have been like "Hmm...maybe there's a better way to do this".
True, but is it discrimination?
I'm honestly not sure...probably not...maybe racism: "I know this is offensive, but because it's re: blacks, I can't be bothered to care or do anything about it".
Strong disclaimer: I can't claim to know what was behind this, I'm just running scenarios. I'm not even alleging anything.
It's the technical side of this issue I'm interested in...it seems (carefully choosing words) like a gaffe was committed, the struggle right now seems to be how to classify the gaffe, if in fact it was committed.
hehe...trying to keep it between the lines, how am I doing? :lol:
True, but is it discrimination or just stupidity by the business?
Brings up an interesting question, can something be racist but not discrimination?
I think so...but you better sharpen your knife, cut there will be a lot of hairsplitting involved. Let's take this issue, as a hypothetical:
1) Store locks up only products for black folks: discrimination
2) Store locks up only products for black folks because of statistical shrink analysis: not discrimination <- bank that
3) Store locks up only products within brand category for black folks because of analysis, without locking up rest of brand category, sees the potential for offensiveness, and does nothing because it's only black people: still not discrimination, since products were locked up because of statistical, unbiased analysis, but because it "only" impacted black folks, nothing was done...racist?
Racist, but not discrimination? Not sure... It's complicated. Not easy to accuse, not easy to dismiss. Like most things, a lot of thought and seeking to understand is required. In most cases, the easier thing to do is apologize, implement the better solution, and move on, as what's not all that tough to understand in this day and age is locking up products designed for a single demographic, while not locking up similar products designed for another demographic. That one should be easy...hehe...